Sociality of Future Outcomes Moderates The Effects Of Warmth And Competence On Social Optimism Bias - A Pre-Registered Study

People are overoptimistic about the future of those they like or admire (social optimism bias), expecting significantly more desirable than undesirable outcomes. By contrast, they are pessimistic about those they don’t like. To operationalize the (dis)like of social targets, warmth and competence are used as two universal dimensions of social perception. In this pre-registered study, we replicate previous findings while adding two new levels of complexity. First, we make the distinction between the sociality of future outcomes: “alone” outcomes (e.g., enjoying a quiet afternoon by oneself) and “social” outcomes (e.g., enjoying a vacation with the significant other). Second, we investigate the effect of attachment styles on one’s expectations for alone and social outcomes towards the social targets. In line with our hypotheses, the sociality of outcomes moderates both the additive and the multiplicative effects of the warmth and competence of social targets on social optimism bias. Diverging from our hypotheses, we find that attachment anxiety and avoidance do not influence the effects of warmth and competence on social optimism bias. However, exploratory analyses revealed that attachment dimensions buffer the magnitude of social optimism bias for highly self-relevant social targets but do not impact a social pessimism bias for irrelevant targets.

Dilbert Moments

Developing and delivering a project to an agreed schedule is fundamentally what project managers do. There is still an ongoing debate about schedule delays. This research investigates the development of schedules through semi-structured in-depth interviews. The findings reveal that half of the respondents believe that delays reported in the media are not real and should be attributed to scope changes. IT project managers estimating techniques include bottom-up estimates, analogy, and expert judgement. Impeding factors reported for the development of realistic schedules were technical (e.g. honest mistakes) and political (e.g. completion dates imposed by the sponsor). Respondents did not mention any psychological factors, although most were aware of optimism bias. However, they were not familiar with approaches to mitigate its impacts. Yet, when these techniques were mentioned, the overwhelming majority agreed that these mitigation approaches would change their schedule estimate.

Cognitive Biases, Risk Perception, and Risky Driving Behaviour

This study evaluated the relationship between drivers’ cognitive biases (i.e., optimism bias, illusion of control) and risky driving behaviour. It also investigated the mediational role of risk perception in the relationship between cognitive biases and self-reported risky driving. The sample included 366 drivers (Mage = 39.13, SD = 13.63 years) who completed scales measuring optimism bias, illusion of control, risk perception, and risky driving behaviour, as well as demographic information. The results showed that risky driving behaviour was negatively predicted by optimism bias and positively predicted by the illusion of control. Further, risk perception negatively correlated with risky behaviour and also mediated the relation between both optimism bias and illusion of control with risky driving. The practical implications of these results for traffic safety and future research are discussed.

Managing megaprojects: conceptual framework and international experience

The discussion paper analyzes international experience in megaproject management, identifying problems and delivery performance. The most important distortions are optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation. it explores the approaches of Norway and the United Kingdom. Both countries have strengthened the robustness of planning and appraisal for megaprojects and have established specific methods and institutional arrangements for these projects to strengthen governance and transparency. Finally, some lessons are put forward that could help other countries, especially in Latin America, when embarking on megaprojects.

Risk perception and optimism during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic

Slowing the spread of COVID-19 requires people to actively change their lives by following protective practices, such as physical distancing and disinfecting their hands. Perceptions about the personal risk of COVID-19 may affect compliance with these practices. In this study, we assessed risk perception and optimism about COVID-19 in a multinational (UK, USA and Germany), longitudinal design during the early stages of the pandemic (16 March 2020; 1 April 2020; 20 May 2020). Our main findings are that (i) people showed a comparative optimism bias about getting infected and infecting others, but not for getting severe symptoms, (ii) this optimism bias did not change over time, (iii) optimism bias seemed to relate to perceived level of control over the action, (iv) risk perception was linked to publicly available information about the disorder, (v) people reported adhering closely to protective measures but these measures did not seem to be related to risk perception, and (vi) risk perception was related to questions about stress and anxiety. In additional cross-sectional samples, we replicated our most important findings. Our open and partly preregistered results provide detailed descriptions of risk perceptions and optimistic beliefs during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in three Western countries.

Comparing personal and social optimism biases: magnitude, overlap, modifiability, and links with social identification and expertise

Individuals are more optimistic about their own future than a comparable person’s future (personal optimism bias). In addition, they show overoptimism toward people or social groups they identify with compared with those they do not identify with (social optimism bias). However, commonalities and differences between personal and social forms of optimism bias remain to be addressed. Data from an experiment on anticipated performances in soccer (including 160 participants), revealed (a) comparable magnitudes of personal and social optimism biases, and (b) only partial overlap between personal and social optimism biases. We further found the magnitude of the biases to depend on (c) prior experience in the investigated area. Social optimism bias, however, did not correlate with (d) the extent to which the participants identified with a social in-group. In addition, we demonstrate that (e) despite the availability of objective feedback, both personal and social optimism biases are hard to overcome. Our data further suggest (f) the existence of qualitatively different social optimism biases; biases that can possibly be distinguished by their degree of automaticity or the adoption of a more affective vs. utilitarian stance. Consequently, the present research reveals that the phenomenon of social optimism bias needs further refinement to adequately address its specific sub-components.